I see liberal hate of God, Jesus & Christians every week. I know you see it too, You just scroll past the articles & Memes & pretend you didn't see it or you'll say it's a conservative pretending to be a liberal.

I agree, But again the ones screaming F God, F Jesus Christianity suc#s drown out the ones who do believe.
I've asked multiple liberals to try a simple 2 word test. Go to any liberal page & type Merry Christmas. None ever do it. It doesn't matter if it's June or December, The backlash is always the same.
Look what it took for You & I to be civil to each other. The majority of Liberals won't even listen.

Okay so first off, God and Jesus are a part of Christianity so you just have to say Christianity in general. Which isn't inherently untrue. There has been tons of backlash against Christian Conservatives by the media and on social media just because of how the Catholic church behaved in Europe centuries ago. You will see them praise Muslims openly despite the fact that Muslim women have MUCH fewer rights than women in America. To say they hate America? Well that's also self-evidently true considering as at least half the liberals out there today are openly socialist and support having MORE government control. Look up what happened in Venezuela recently to understand why socialism doesn't work no matter what country you are.

But I digress, it does work both ways, but at the same time the difference is that there is much more evidence to support that the majority of liberals hate America than there is evidence of the majority of Conservatives being racist, bigots, etc. Liberals just throw those words out there to shut up conservatives when they are losing an argument. Conservatives don't do that until AFTER the argument is finished and both sides had fair say.

Also, there isn't backlash against conservative Christians because of what the Catholic Church did hundreds of years ago. There is backlash because of what conservative Christians are doing *today*.

I don't hear liberals praise Muslims as much as defend the peaceful ones against claims that they are all violent terrorists. And yes, women in majority Muslim countries don't have the same rights women in America have. But women in America haven't always had those same rights, either. Women in this country couldn't even vote until 1920. For a century and a half of this country's history, women could not vote. And they only got the right to vote after a long struggle, fighting largely against conservative Christians.

Supporting socialism or big government does not automatically mean someone hates America, so no, that is not "self-evidently true".

If you say the majority of liberals (as in more than 50%) hate America, show me some actual numbers to back up that claim. Otherwise I have no reason to believe what you say.

And no, conservatives don't throw out insults after the argument is finished. They do it during the argument as well. Stop embarrassing yourself with this bullcrap.

The 19th Amendment (the Equal Suffrage Amendment). When the Amendment was submitted to the states, 26 of the 36 states that ratified it had Republican legislatures. Of the nine states that voted against ratification, eight were Democratic.” Many of these Democrat-controlled states refused to ratify the amendment until the 1970s.
Your claim that conservative Christians fought against women's right to vote is false.
You can blame Christians all you want, But it was Liberal Democrats who fought against the Women's movement. Are there peaceful Muslims? Yes, But they are silenced by the extremists who control the Muslim population. Do Liberals hate America? The ones screaming the loudest hate it, The liberals who want to get along are drowned out.

The parties never switched sides, That's a lie spun by Democrats to cover up the racism & oppression Democrats have inflicted on Blacks & women since 1828.
Democrats have not changed, Their identity politics prove they still categorize people into different groups and label them.
Many groups opposed the women's suffrage movement, But groups don't write legislation, Congress does. Democrats opposed giving women equal right from 1878-1970. Democrats still openly oppress women today., If they aren't Democrats.

Identity politics is not the same as supporting blatantly racist policies. And yes, the parties did switch sides decades ago. Republicans wanted rural Southern voters, and they began appealing to the racism of those people. This is historic fact.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Not all Liberals behave as though they are brain dead but the few who do are the ones that end up getting their voices heard because they shout the loudest or throw the most shit everywhere.

Hop out of your hole and smell the roses. The #metoo movement is plenty proof enough since it is full of people that used to think liberally and actually woke up and realized that Liberals actually DON'T have tolerance. Also, your go-to comment about how Muslim women don't have near the amount of rights as women in America is to bring up that America *used* to not allow women to vote? You do the same thing every other liberal does which is, "well yeah but *insert group* has had it bad here too." Thank God the founding fathers set up a document that wasn't written for the times, but rather written to stand up to the test of time otherwise progress wouldn't be made. Meanwhile women in Saudi Arabia (or some other middle eastern country I can't remember the name of) JUST got the right to drive a f**king car. Comparing that to the fact that women in this country now have the same rights as men and have had it for over 100 years is ridiculous.

Also, what are Christians doing today exactly? Because all I hear is that anytime someone disagrees with border policy, people say, "oh so I guess THIS is how Christians act." Please. You don't have a country if you don't have borders and every country has a right to have a border policy so let's shut that shit down and stop pretending it's racist when Obama was saying the same thing when he was in office. The only difference is that our current administration is actually being active on the policy that was already in place, they just dusted it off and started implementing it.

Also, only the extremist people (found on both sides) actually believe that all Muslims are terrorist. Everyone in their right mind knows that not every one of them is a terrorist. Which is something everyone can agree on.

Did you also know that there were a very large majority of women during the women's suffrage movement that didn't actually want the right to vote? They thought that having the right to vote meant that they would also have to sign up for selective service too and many of them were perfectly happy with the way things were going. I'm not saying that women shouldn't have been given the right to vote, I'm just giving some trivia out there that during that period of time, the women in this country weren't as homogenized as people have been lead to believe.

They're largely the ones behind the push for laws restricting abortion and LGBT equality. Many conservative Christians think it should be legal to deny someone a job just because they're gay or bisexual or transgender, and that's not right. They spread hatred, fear and paranoia.

I'll say what you said above. Maybe some individual Christians believe that way and try to act that way, but not as a whole. Of course think about your argument for a second. You are complaining about Christians wanting to restrict abortion. I mean honestly, it's to be expected that Christians don't want to murder innocent babies. The issue isn't about people wanting to tell women what to do with their bodies, they just don't think it's morally right to kill unborn children. Ya know, kinda how Liberals berated Trump for his border policy and how they took the moral high ground about the poor children being separated from their parents at the border. The shear Hypocrisy behind it is astounding.

So no. Christians as a whole don't think it should be okay to deny someone a job just because of their sexuality. In fact, did you know that when applying for a job or interviewing for a job you don't even have to list your sexuality at all? Why does sexuality HAVE to be announced so openly everywhere we go? Why not keep your sexuality private to employers since it really doens't matter or have anything to do with your job? If an interviewer asks you what your sexuality is, I'm pretty sure that's an illegal interview question and you don't have to answer it.

Spreading hatred, fear, and paranoia? You mean like how Liberals are constantly doing by swearing up and down that Trump has Russian ties? Or how he was going to put people in internment camps? Or how he is Hitler? Or how he was going to make policy against minorities and LGBT community (which the ONLY thing of note he did was not allow transgender in the military and I am pretty sure it was a fine tuned thing which stopped a transgender person from being able to join the military, then undergo a transition whilst getting it covered by the military and also being on paid leave. Not to mention that it's been correlated that the hormone imbalances that occur due to transitioning cause depression and anxiety which isn't a good combination in a military force. It was more to protect them and their fellow brothers in arms than to hurt them or their social status)?

It's been 2 1/2 years and he hasn't gotten us blown up, he hasn't started a war, which is saying a LOT because we were pretty close with North Korea, and the economy is doing good with generationally low unemployment rates, and lower black and Hispanic unemployment.

"it's to be expected that Christians don't want to murder innocent babies."

Abortion is legal. Murder is illegal (by definition). Abortion is not murder.

There are many conservatives who would tell a woman who got pregnant as a result of being **ped that she should be forced by law to carry that pregnancy to term. That's terrible. So yes, it is about telling women what to do with their bodies.

Christians as a whole don't support anti-LGBT discrimination, that's true. Many do, however.

You asked why sexuality has to be announced openly? That's not what I was referring to. I was talking about instances where someone has a job, and their boss somehow finds out they are LGBT (saw something on their phone, overheard them mention it, etc) and then fires them. And since you did bring it up, there are some Christian organizations that make it clear during the hiring process that they won't hire any LGBT people.

"Spreading hatred, fear, and paranoia? You mean like how Liberals are constantly doing by swearing up and down that Trump has Russian ties? Or how he was going to put people in internment camps? Or how he is Hitler?"

Okay, I'll give you that.

"Or how he was going to make policy against minorities and LGBT community"

He has already done that. And what you said about his transgender military ban was incorrect. It would apply to all transgender people who want to join, not just ones who join then go through transition surgery and have to take time to recover.

I agree that in the case of **pe, that it is terrible and is one of the grey areas of this type of debate. However, as many point out, that cases of **pe account for only a very small percentage of women who are getting abortions which means that sure, in the case of **pe why shouldn't a woman want an abortion? I get that completely it was unplanned and certainly unwanted. But the rest of the cases? Abortion is legal because a supreme court decision but based off of what we know about biology, is that those babies do become living organisms at some point fairly early in the pregnancy. When you make abortion not only legal, but this thing that should be accepted and maybe even encouraged by society, then you trivialize motherhood and fatherhood and what it means to be a parent. That's not even some religious way of looking at it, that's just what is happening. If two people have sex unprotected, and then have a baby on the way, it just dissolves them of the responsibility of having sex and even what giving yourself to someone like that means in the first place. They have things like Plan B where you take it within the first 3 days and it terminates the egg, and while that does little to stop trivializing parenthood, it at least terminates the pregnancy before a heartbeat is formed and I support that before I'd support having an abortion.

But if Abortion is not murder, then how come we live in a country where if someone kills a pregnant woman, he/she can be charged with a double homicide, but abortion is totally okay? The only difference in what is happening is that again, a supreme court deemed it unconstitutional to not allow.

To your LGBT stuff, I would like to know what other policies he's passed that intentionally target them and what they do. I still stand by the notion that he passed the military one to protect them and their fellow brothers in arms. I don't think he was saying they can't perform well, I just think he was trying to help both groups out but who knows these days?

Cases of **pe may constitute a small percentage of abortions, but they do happen, and many people don't even want those cases to be legal exceptions.

"those babies do become living organisms at some point fairly early in the pregnancy"

A fetus or embryo is already a living organism. That part isn't up for debate.

I get what you're saying about how abortion being legal can make people less responsible when it comes to sexual activity. The solution isn't to outlaw abortion, it's to teach people to be more responsible.

I don't know if a person who kills a pregnant woman is charged with two murders in every circumstance. If she's only a few weeks along, they may or may not charge the killer with two counts of murder. I just don't know. But in cases where someone is charged with a double murder, it's because that pregnancy was terminated without the mother's consent.

Off the top of my head I can't immediately think of any other anti-LGBT stuff he's done, but that's irrelevant. What matters is that he has done it. I find your argument absurd that banning transgender people from the military is for their own good.

It's not just for their own good it's for everyone's own good. Some soldiers may not give two shits they are fighting alongside a man that used to be a woman. Others however, may not share the same sentiment.

It's sort of the debate with should a man who transforms himself into a woman be allowed to compete in women's sports. It doesn't matter that you are getting sex change surgery and getting increases in hormones, but how is that fair when biologically they are still stronger than women?

How does that apply here? Well take a woman that transforms herself into a man but gets put on front line duty in whatever branch they are in. Biologically they aren't going to be as strong as the men (though the boost in testosterone helps tremendously) that can be a matter of life or death.

I just happen to think it would protect them as well as others by doing that. Whether they suffer physical or emotional bullying by their peers, or they can't perform effectively in combat. HOWEVER. Big however here. I understand there are tons of opportunities in the military other than fighting in combat so maybe having a policy to allow them to be a part of the armed forces but without being involved in combat would be the best option? This is another one of those grey areas in debates that we find. It's one thing to be an advocate for equality, but sometimes equality doesn't always mean better. I'm sure right now, many women in the military enjoy the comfort of knowing the majority of them aren't deployed on front lines.

If someone has a problem fighting alongside a transgender person, then barring transgender people from the military isn't for someone's own good, it's for someone else's comfort. If someone is in the military, they should just do their job and not get hung up on who they don't happen to like. Did you know there are some white people in the US military who don't like block people? It's true. Should we bar black people from serving because "some soldiers may not give two shits they are fighting alongside" a black man, but "others however, may not share the same sentiment"?

"...but how is that fair when biologically they are still stronger than women?"

Not all men are stronger than women. There are many women who are stronger and/or faster than I am. Gender is not automatically a guarantee of athletic ability or lack thereof.

As far as a transman who is put on the front lines, if they can do the job and carry their gear, what's the problem? You're taking broad generalities (i.e. women aren't as strong as men) and applying them to every single person in that category.

There are some women in the military who would not only be open to fighting on the front lines, but they could do the job just fine. Are all women able to perform that task? No, and neither are all men.

And what you said about bullying would also apply to black people. "It would be in the best interest of black people if they weren't allowed to serve in the military, because they might get bullied or harassed by other soldiers, and we don't want that."

Until someone gives me a good reason why transgender people shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military, I will stand by my belief that they should. And so far, I haven't heard a good reason.

Fair points, but the difference between a person of color, and anyone who is transgender, is that a transgender person still has to manage hormone imbalances and mood swings (caused directly from those imbalances). Yes, I understand that mood swings happen to everyone, but to be considered fit for active duty, I'm pretty sure you have to pass a psych evaluation.

Other than that the only thing I disagree with is your statement about not all men are stronger than women. While using yourself as an example isn't terrible, I feel I should clarify what I meant by biologically stronger.

There are women right now stronger than me as well. I'm sure any woman in the MMA could squat way more than I ever could. The point I'm making is that men have the biological means and potential to always be stronger than women if they put in the work. So take an active man and an active woman, and make them do the same exact workouts and exercises for a month. The man will come out stronger in each workout than the woman would, though both of them would see an improvement to their overall.

It's not to say women can't be strong, that's totally not the argument I'm trying to make. With that said, when it comes to women on the front lines, I'm not trying to say they can't do it. I'm saying many women may simply not want to. Yeah, there are women out there that want to, but just because they want do, does that mean they should speak for all women that serve in the military? Because once you sign up, you belong to Uncle Sam until you serve your contract. So if they implement something like that, that means women who don't even want to do front line duty, could get sent to front line and they could be halfway through their service.

Again, this all goes with those grey areas of debates and it's one of those things where nobody knows what the right answer is, they just know what's wrong or doesn't feel right.

TL:DR what should we do about it? Well I certainly don't know. But maybe someone out there is smart enough to figure out a happy medium for everyone.

How do you know when you win an argument with a liberal? When you respectfully argue their points with valid counterpoints until they call you racist, homophobic, or use psychological terms to describe you despite not being a PhD.